Up Deer Creek Without a Paddle?

Three video's, were shown at the Orono Fair Sept., 2006. The video's depict current Clarington mayoral candidate, Richard Ward, speaking at (previously televised) Council meetings - digging for the truth. Ward contends that for many years, a particular golf course in Ajax, was being provided with water, to irrigate the lush golf greens - for free.

Please view the video, below.
What are your thoughts?
Your comments are welcomed and any questions you may be pondering.
More information that Richard Ward has acquired over the past few years, will follow.

Watch the First video below, of Richard Ward in Council

Deer Creek Watergate

Deer Creek Irrigation System cont....

Second Video of Richard Ward in council meeting.

Deer Creek Watergate and The Will of Council

"The truth is always in order".....as Richard Ward states when he speaks in Regional Council, asking for the 'Right of Council' to over-ride the 'Will of Council' to do the right thing.
Regional Health Department is asked to investigate, but they apparently declined, due to political interference.

Third and last time Richard Ward was 'allowed' to speak on this subject, in council.


I am reading a copy of a public document showing election campaign contributions for the period of May 2000 to December 2000. I see 2 in the c/o Ron Halliday, 2 consultants and a greens keeper, among many others - with some apparent connection to Deer Creek Golf Course.
Now I am reading over a copy of a police report, prepared by Insp. Tom Cameron.
And Lo and Behold!!! WOW!!!
The REAL TRUTH behind the 'Richard Ward By-law'.
(This by-law was enacted to prevent Richard Ward from setting foot in townhall.)

I am reading the true reason, the real truth, right in front of my own eyes.
Stay tuned for the REAL TRUTH, the real reason for the by-law!!!
Nothing like what we have been told in the media.
Absolutely Stunning!!!

So I ask...Can You Hear the Silence?

Copied exactly from a poster publication created by Richard Ward, as follows:

"After I picked up Mutton's 2000 campaign contributions I was harrassed by the police helicopter which led by-law harrassment and a second police report.
The supplementary report was delivered to my house by six police vehicles.
On the 9th of July 2001 I met with the Inspector and Staff Sgt. and reported that the actions of the Town was criminal with the motive being the contributions from the golf course in Ajax.
This report stopped the illegal use of the watermain and the course dried out and the pond went empty.
The golf course started recovering storm water while the 2000 permit to take water was being processed.
The water taking permit was refused yet the golf course worked until last month fixing the leaky storage pond.
I documented the removal of the illegal connection on satalite mapping.
Regional council has refused to allow me to speak since January 22, 2003.
The police threaten to charge me for trying to provide this evidence.
My investigation has concluded that the Ajax Golf Course used 300 million gallons per year for 15 years at $1.45 per thousand gallons. The dollar value total $435,000.00 per year for 15 years.
My actions standing up to the will of council has saved the taxpayer about $2,000,000.00 since July 9th 2001.
Clarington's share is about 20%.
This is why I say I've earned your vote let me earn your respect by standing up for all taxpayers.
Thank you."

Freight Trains

I encountered a mayoral candidate who has presented some facts and documentation, which I find disturbing.
Richard Ward, a Durham resident for 56 years, is running for the mayor's seat and does not appear to be, your typical citizen.
Unlike some of us, Ward does not take a back seat, when it comes to pursuing justice and accountability, in local government. Akin to a freight train, pounding through the night, Ward has been 'out there' fighting for our rights and our hard-earned tax dollars.

Insistent Persistence

Richard Ward, mayoral candidate for Clarington, seems pretty determined, as he continues to wade into deep waters, digging for the truth. I am content to learn the by-law was repealed, although, I do question the real reason for the original implementation.

By Jennifer Stone

Bylaw keeping candidate out of town hall appealed But, Ward wants an investigation into a west Durham golf course

CLARINGTON -- Richard Ward will be allowed back into Town hall, but he still wants the Municipality to "satisfy" his "concerns" about a situation in Ajax.
Mr. Ward was banned from Town Hall in 2001. He was allowed access to the building only under express permission from Clarington CAO Franklin Wu.
According to the original bylaw, council felt "satisfied (Mr. Ward) on several occasions has verbally abused certain employees at the Municipal Administrative Centre and on one recent occasion at the Orono Works Yard of the Municipality of Clarington."
But, a few weeks ago, Mr. Ward, who is running for mayor in the Nov. 13 election, approached council to ask the bylaw be repealed. He also asked for all information pertaining to the original passage of the bylaw.
Council agreed to repealing the bylaw, but Mr. Ward said he still wants further information about a situation regarding an Ajax business, which he contends has taken water illegally from the Region.
"I've always maintained there was a situation coming from the west, in Ajax, that was the motive" for passage of the bylaw keeping him out of Town hall, said Mr. Ward.
So, Mr. Ward has asked Clarington council to look further into the matter, to see if the company in question is still "chargeable under the Election Act" for providing more campaign contributions to certain candidates than is allowed.
The matter was thrown out of court several years ago.
Clarington staff has been asked to provide Mr. Ward with all information on the matter.
If my memory serves me correctly, "the matter thrown out of court several years ago", pertained only to politicians and not to the owners of the golf course. All the available evidence, smacks of a cover-up. Further clarification and investigation should probably be on the agenda. Richard Ward may end up 'walking on water', yet.

Scrutinizing the Media

The Georgetown Independent and Free Press, in their mis-guided wisdom, decided to publish a commentary on who should be "the chosen", in their up and coming election. In Clarington, Durham Region's Electoral Endorsement provided the readers with the media's choices for mayor and councilors. I have a problem with this and think it shouldn't be allowed. Especially since the 'only media' presence we have, in their final analysis, condons and endorses an incumbent or candidate...would this not sway the minds of people who have not yet made a decision on their own?
Everything we read, comes from one source and that is Metroland's Durham Media division, which includes The Canadian Statesman, Clarington This Week and the website durhamregion.com. Have we read any performance news about the present mayor, other than his 'ribbon cutting' adventures? Have you read any newsworthy articles about a candidate, any candidate for that matter? Have we been provided with information, other than the self proclaimed profiles of the candidates? Oh...Durham Media, as in The Canadian Statesman printed an article about the 'Richard Ward Bylaw' that was repealed, but was obviously not newsworthy enough for the public to know, that the current council has refused to provide the truth behind the bylaw. Truthfulness of the current council, is obviously not an important issue, with Durham Media. Our only choice is to swallow and follow what Durham Media prints. Being a one media town, shouldn't the ethics and consideration of Durham Media, be of heightened importance?
Then, sure as shootin', out of the west rides the co-editor, Al Kirouac of
Halton Herald:
When a supposedly non-bias newsprint media starts to endorse political candidates, particularly the ones who have been embedded in the existing government, it's probably time its readership took a closer scrutinizing look at that media. Under normal conditions, the newsprint media’s job is to report and provide enough news to its readership, so the readership can then make an informed decision as to whom to vote for.....cont......From reading the pages of the Georgetown Independent, it looks to some like the ‘Morality of Media Ethics – 101’ was a class at the school of journalism, that the paper's editor, John McGhie, may of skipped. It’s long been an ethical rule of the media to not endorse political candidates, a faux pas The Georgetown Independent has not had a problem infringing upon during recent elections.
The Halton Herald may have a point there. But how are we to discern any differences? How are we to know? We are only fed, one point of view - and it isn't neutral. I notice on the Halton Herald, that all public comments and opinions, are allowed. Not so with our sole news media outlet. Everything is screened and censored, therefore, we only get their perspective - not the general public opinion.

What makes one news media better or different than another? Isn't it mandatory for all wannabe reporters and publishers to attend 'Journalism 101'?

Is Superman Alive and Well In Clarington?

VoteClaringtonBlog provides interested residents with up to date information about the current election and a run-down on some whoppers that are running for office. What follows, is one person's perception of the contenders for Burgermeister.

Who wants to be mayor?

Someone with a track record and personal charges pending in private life; someone who is a political watchdog and bites; someone who appears soft, sweet and knowledgeable; and 2 someone's who have no experience in municipal affairs.

Personal charges pending in private life have naught to do, with a track record of prosperity. If the charges were related to an issue of municipal affairs, then it should weigh heavily and change the landscape of opinion.

The watchdog's extensive, municipal experience is evident, whilst running in political circles, biting and nipping, in an attempt to bare the truth.

Soft and sweet is good, in some instances -- except politics. Sweets are eaten up. Soft can be manipulated and melded into another thought form, which suppresses knowledge.

If either one of the 2 someone's with no political experience in municipal affairs, had sat for 3 years in council first, they might stand a chance. But to come from zero municipal experience to the seat of mayor, in one giant bound? They must think they are superman. And I don't see 'superman', on the list of possible candidates.

We need a change.
All I see is a pitbull and a track record.

Who do we want to be mayor?

Posted by: Belle | October 20, 2006 at 01:41 PM

Hummmmmm....do we have to make a choice? Couldn't we just flip a coin or pass straws? I mean, isn't one just like the last?

Can You Read the Signs?

Oct., 20, 2006 Toronto Star
Election Signs 'Key'

......Residents across the city awoke yesterday to find signs of all colours and designs in front of homes and on storefront windows, and that will only increase in the days leading up to the Nov. 13 vote.

Though the 1,379 candidates running for council, mayor and trustee in the GTA are also using the Internet, all-candidates debates, door knocking, and flyers to get their names and platforms out, experts say signs play a key role come election day.

"In municipal elections there are no parties, no leaders and a lower profile. So name recognition is key, key, key,'' says Nelson Wiseman, an associate professor of politics at the University of Toronto.

"For a lot of people that vote, the only thing they know is `That guy had a poster up and I guess he cares, so I'm going to vote for him'" Wiseman adds.

I do agree, that name recognition is important, in an election. But, do folks here in Clarington really think that if one sign is up that it means the candidate cares? And if many signs are up, then that candidate cares more?

I shiver.

Let's say that statement from Professor Wiseman, is true. (Where did Wiseman glean that information from, anyway?) Are we really that gullible?

Gullibility is not one of my weaknesses, because, when I look at all our signage, I see $$$$$'s. Money, and a lot of it, has been stuck in mud and gravel, up and down our roadways. So, who is spending all the bucks? If their own bucks are being spent in such a lavish fashion, I have to wonder...what if it were our hard earned tax dollars? Would there be more care, concern and consideration, because it was someone else's money?

Am I going to vote for the one with the most signs, because they must care more?
I don't think so!!!

Open Your Eyes

With local elections swiftly, bearing down upon the region, candidates are cranking up the heat. Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. Pamphlets and flyers, falling out of mailboxes. Faces and names blurring, as their messages repeat similar themes.

One message covers them all, "An honest and open council that is accountable."
What does that mean?
Have we been duped with things hidden, issues not addressed; reasons left unexplained and actions taken without public input; ethics, administrative, procedural and financial matters - tarnished, trampled and abused?

We the children...er...I mean, we the people, drift with gay abandon through our day, while council acts on issues, which may affect every single one of us. And we have no idea!

We deserve to feel some confidence in the public service of our elected officials, as they fulfill their responsibilities and account for their actions.